Blood spatter in the Tabram murder

[Ben]

Ben, with all due respect to Bob, he was not around in 1888,...put simply, Bob Hinton does not know.

I would certainly credit Bob with such knowledge, Jon. On the basis of both his book and message board contributions, it should be quite apparent that his knowledge of "weaponology" is impressive, and his insights carry more weight than the result of a hasty google search, in my opinion.

Nobody ever suggested that the socket bayonet had any involvement in the Tabram murder, which is fortunate, because it would have made a comically implausible candidate for ANY of the wounds.

Regards,
Ben

[harry]

Jon,I am only repeating what was taught.What a military person might do.I a m with those that believe a bladed weapon was the more likely to be used on Tabram,whether it be bayonet,dagger,penknife or home fashioned.E ven with a foot on the chest,withdrawing from the sternum would not be a clean and easy withdrawl.I would expect significent damage compared to a withdrawl from the abdomen or throat,and that is what occured.With the same weapon.

[Fisherman]

David:

"He made a suggestion that turns out to be unlikely."

But that is just what I am saying, David - it has not "turned out" in that way at all. Nothing has surfaced to contradict Killeen, not then and not later on. There is no evidence at all to suggest that he WAS wrong, and evidence is what it takes.

I am being told that the normal scenario in a stabbing is that only one weapon is used, and that one may therefore conclude that Killeens suggestion is a dodgy one. But this is not so. The specifics of one case is not reliant on the overall statistics at all. Therefore it is completely useless to try and fit Killeens round peg into the square statistics hole. It does not belong there and it never did. From the second Killeen stated that one instrument was long, strong and dagger-like and the other one a pen-knife, the case instead belonged to the pile of cases that do not ascribe to the inherent qualities of the statistically typical case.
If we were to lean against statistics here, then we must accept that the murder was not perpetrated by the Ripper, since stabbings are normally not the work of serial killers. But for some reason or another, THAT particular statistic does not apply here. One wonders why?

So when you say "unlikely", you make it sound as if it was more likely that Killeen was wrong, than it was that he was right. But that is just plain wrong. An asserted penknife and an asserted daggerlike, long, strong instrument ARE totally, totally different weapons, and no talk about statistics is ever going to change that.

Back to the drawing board, David - there is nothing that allows us to for a second look away from the very clear possibility that Tabram was slain by a soldier, in spite of all the hard lobbying you produce to sway that picture. For it seems to me that your work is all directed to this goal: to try and make the possibility of a bayonet go away - begone, foul weapon! - by means of looking away from the evidence and tarnishing Killeen.

A penknife and a long, strong instrument goes to show that this road is effectively closed to you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"All very true Fish, except that the ribcage will not give in the same way.

Certainly there is some flexibility but punch a knife into the abdomen and the tissue & intestines will most certainly give way, as you have been mentioning. Not the same with the heart, being behind the ribcage, the same argument does not hold here. A longer blade would be needed, sadly he never said how long the "longer instrument" had to be."

That, Jon, is certainly correct, and I never meant that the heart piercing could have been achieved with the smaller weapon. So thanks for pointing out that I could have worded myself more precise! Yes, the heart stab is another very good pointer to two weapons, since we know that the other weapon had a blade that equalled a pen-knife blade.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"I'm not being nasty, Jon, but this is really too much."

What are you talking about? We know that the blade that caused the 37 smaller stabs was perceived by Killeen to be a penknife blade.

We also know that the stab through the sternum was provided with a weapon that was long, strong and daggerlike.

Do you propose to say that a penknife is long, strong and daggerlike? I hope not.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

What are you talking about? We know that the blade that caused the 37 smaller stabs was perceived by Killeen to be a penknife blade.

We also know that the stab through the sternum was provided with a weapon that was long, strong and daggerlike.

Do you propose to say that a penknife is long, strong and daggerlike? I hope not.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish, I think you and Jon are once more reading too much into Killeen's words. There was no less than 22 stabs in the trunk, mostly concentrated in the breast area. Among them, 5 in the left lung, 2 in the right lung - all caused by the knife according to Killeen (no need to point out how close to the heart the lungs are).
Is the sternum the ONLY access to the heart ?

If you and Jon are correct, the sequence of events is crystal-clear :37 stabs with the knife - Martha being still alive - and then the final and lethal blow given to the sternum, with a longer and double edged instrument, as to reach the heart.

Why not... But how limpid and indubitable is that, compared to Killeen's testimony, in which we find the wound in the heart listed among those caused by the knife...?!

If you are right, then really Killeen wasn't fit for the job.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Hi Fish, I think you and Jon are once more reading too much into Killeen's words."

I can only answer for myself, and I can assure that if somebody is taking great trouble to find himself a truth other than the obvious one, well, then that somebody is not me.
The heart, David, is situated in the very centre of the body. It is a wise move by nature to have it that way, since it will be maximally protected to any objects entering the body.
In comparison, the lungs are closer to the ribcage, meaning that they are less well protected.
As if this was not enough, further protection is offered the heart by the sternum. It is a massive piece of bone, situated directly over the heart.
The lungs are protected by the ribs, but there is space between the ribs that offer the possibility for a blade to travel through them.

The heart can be reached from the front of a human being from different angles, just like you say. But any other approach than the one through the sternum will call for a blade that is longer than a penknife blade. Therefore, the penknife blade was not the one that caused the piercing of the heart.

Incidentally, when we have a pierced heart, and when we have a pierced sternum, and when we have a long, strong instrument doing that piercing, it is logic - and not "reading in too much" - to work from the assumption that the sternum wound was the one that hurt the heart. After all, if we thrust a long, strong instrument through the sternum of a person lying flat on her back, the one logical spot to expect the instrument to end up is in the heart.

If you wish to argue that a penknife pierced the heart without going through the sternum, David, then Iīm afraid you are reading far too much into .. into ... Jeez, I canīt event tell WHAT you are reading it into!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

January 9,1910. Jamaican Gleaner.
Penknife wound to heart.Wound at angle of 60 degrees through middle of left breast.Two inches of blade penetrated body.Doesn't seem to take much.

[DVV]

Fish, it's good you can provide us with an unshakable scenario - something all ripperologists failed to achieve for 125 years.
Problem is that Killeen never said : "the cause of the death is the last stab, in the heart, done by a dagger with two cutting edges that went through the sternum."
So yes, you're reading too much into Killeen's words.

If you wish to argue that a penknife pierced the heart without going through the sternum, David, then Iīm afraid you are reading far too much into .. into ... Jeez, I canīt event tell WHAT you are reading it into!
Fisherman

No my friend, I've already pointed out that Killeen merely said : "it could have been caused by an ordinary penknife", I've already pointed out also that Killeen had no way to KNOW that this knife was a folding one or not. All we know is that this knife did reach several internal organs.

[DVV]

January 9,1910. Jamaican Gleaner.
Penknife wound to heart.Wound at angle of 60 degrees through middle of left breast.Two inches of blade penetrated body.Doesn't seem to take much.

Thanks for that, Harry.

It's so obvious that IF the wound in the heart had been at the same time :

1: the cause of the death
2: the last stab
3: the same stab that went through the sternum
4: the only stab given with a dagger with 2 cutting edges

....it would have been a bit more clearly worded by the impeccable Dr Killeen. But fact is that, on the contrary, it is listed among the other wounds performed by the knife.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"January 9,1910. Jamaican Gleaner.
Penknife wound to heart.Wound at angle of 60 degrees through middle of left breast.Two inches of blade penetrated body.Doesn't seem to take much."

Thanks for that, Harry! One would love to have more information about blade lenght and all.
If we take a human trunk that is 50 centimeters broad and 30 centimeters deep at the heart, and place a normally large heart in itīs middle, then in a standing up position, the blade will have to travel approximately 15 centimeters before reaching the heart if it is stuck in at an angle of 45 degrees between the centre of the ribcage and the left side of the body.

This is just an example, since we have no details at all concerning the actual deed. How large was the victim, for example? If it was a small child or a very thin, smallish woman, we are dealing with other measurements altogether which I am sure you will appreciate.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"I've already pointed out that Killeen merely said : "it could have been caused by an ordinary penknife"

And this he said about the sternum hole? Would you point me to your source, please, if this is the case?

"So yes, you're reading too much into Killeen's words."

I am not the one turning the evidenced series of events inside out. I am not the one reading about a murder perpetrated with two weapons, crying out: Aha - it would of course have been just the one weapon!

I have no agenda at all to defend here. I am very much on the fence with Tabram, since I have read the evidence and realized that she could have been killed by one or more people, by a soldier or by the Ripper. These opportunities are completely open, all of them.

So donīt tell me that I am reading too much into things. People who, presented with clear evidence, come up with a theory (which is the nicest thing I can call it) that is completely adverse to this evidence, THOSE are the ones who are reading too much into things. Much worse, they are reading things that were never written.

I am not the phantasist here. You are.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry! This is for you! It is from an article I found, called: "Restrictions On Carrying A Bowie Knife".

These are the relevant parts I need you to see:


"A Bowie knife is a weapon. Although it does have utilitarian uses, as well, this knife is most well-known for being a legendary fighting blade. Like any other weapon, owning one means being responsible and exercising some common sense when carrying it. It also means knowing the local and regional laws that apply to carrying any kind of weapon."

...and this:

"There are certain areas where any type of weapon is prohibited, regardless of one's state laws. Federal properties, hospitals and schools are good examples of such places. The owner of a Bowie knife, in these cases, has to be responsible and leave their blade at home."

and finally:

"Bowie knives will be restricted in some cities by local ordinances. In many cases, these ordinances will be based on blade length. Usually, they permit the carry of any knife 3 inches or shorter in blade length, which is too short to reach the heart on a human being."

And there we are, obviously: A blade of 3 inches is too short to reach the heart. And that would owe to what I said earlier - the heart is hidden away in the middle of the body. Of course, a newborn infant would not have the measures that would protect itīs heart from three inches of steel. Therefore, this regulation should be read as one that is meant to apply to grownups. And Tabram was a grownup, and by the apparition of things, not a thin woman.

This is why I think that your Jamaican article needs to have a bit more information added to it. Do you have this information at hand? If so, please post it!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:

"I've already pointed out that Killeen merely said : "it could have been caused by an ordinary penknife"

And this he said about the sternum hole? Would you point me to your source, please, if this is the case?

The best,
Fisherman

I beg your pardon, Fish ?
I was merely answering one of your previous posts in which you took for granted that a penknife had been used. And I replied that Killen had no way to know whether the knife was a penknife or a folding one, or whether he had a fixed blade. And that all we know it that it could reach several internal organs.

[Fisherman]

Since it may be lost on some posters here, I ought perhaps further press the implications of the Bowie knife laws described above:

1. A knife-blade that is no longer than 3 inches will not reach the heart.
2. A pen-knife blade is normally around 3 inches long.
3. A pen-knife blade was what was used on Tabram in 37, perhaps 38, instances. We know this since, as Jon quoted from Sugden on the Home Office thread: "The records of the Metropolitan Police still contain a contemporary digest in tabular form of all the official reports made upon the case. In one column, headed 'Nature and description of wounds as given in surgeon's report', is written the comment "twenty wounds on breast, stomach and abdomen apparently inflicted with a penknife." The official name of this document is MEPO 3/140, by the way.
As we can see, the fact that a penknife was responsible was something that was deriving from the "nature and description Of wounds AS GIVEN IN SURGEONS REPORT".

The surgeon? Killeen. He was in charge.

The report? The post-mortem report, of course - unless somebody wants to argue that Killeen wrote more reports in this context.

Meaning that we have a direct link to at least one thing Killeen said in the lost post-mortem report - he stated that a penknife was used on Tabram.

But how, one might ask, did a pen-knife reach all the way in to her heart, piercing it as it were?

Answer: It did not.

But, one might ask, does that not mean that some other weapon must have been included in the deed, since we know that the heart WAS pierced?

Oh, yes - that is EXACTLY what it means.

But of course, I may just be reading things into Killeens testimony that were never there.

Or not.

Definitely not.

This, by the way, should answer your last post too, David. Killeen WAS certain that it was a penknife. And this means, boiled down, that he was certain that the blade that caused the 37 smaller stabs was a blade that looked the way blades on penknives do. To argue that he could not have known whether it was a pen- or a pocket knife is just stalling - the one and only thing that is of interest is the size and shape of the blade. After that, it may have been mounted on a severed zebraleg, a vacuumcleaner or a harpoonhandle.

But I will leave it to you to theorize about that, since I donīt delve into things I can in no way substantiate myself.


The best,
Fisherman